Jayman777 disagreed with my analysis of the first cause argument earlier.
In the case of the first cosmological argument quoted by Christina, it is because matter (and the laws governing it) are contingent. In the case of the kalam cosmological argument, it is because matter (and the laws governing it) began to exist.
First, not true. See virtual particles.
Second, even if that was true, how does that change the argument? If you think something can either always exist or spontaneously exist, why not matter? You can’t establish those rules and then ignore them.
If you’re going to say “god always existed” but that matter didn’t, you don’t know that second part. We have a variety of working hypotheses for what could’ve pre-dated the Big Bang. If you believe something could always exist, why not matter? We know matter exists. There is not good evidence for a god (certainly far, far less than for matter).
[The theist] is saying a necessary being need not have a cause while a contingent being does need a cause.
You can’t just define god as necessary and call that proof of his existence.
Or he is saying that a being who did not begin to exist does not need a cause while a being that began to exist does need a cause. There is no contradiction in these beliefs.
So he can admit something could always exist? Awesome! I say it’s matter and the laws of physics. We know those exist.
So he admits things can’t begin to exist spontaneously? Awesome! God couldn’t have existed this way.
This is post 43 of 49 for Blogathon.
Total donors is at 255 (if we hit 300 by 7am tomorrow, even if those donations are just the $5 minimum, 20 campers at Camp Quest Ohio will get to pie Michaelyn or JT in the face)! There will be pictures. That link also has some other ideas for pledging for Blogathon.
You can still donate to the SSA by supporting other blogathoners, art contributors, personal fundraising pages or through a direct donation to the SSA! SSA Week lasts through June 17th. Spread the word!